We performed a comparison between Akamai CloudTest, OpenText LoadRunner Professional, and Tricentis NeoLoad based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools.
"The solution is very stable."
"The level of support is quite good and the integration is also very flexible."
"This is an awesome performance testing tool for web based applications, able to generate load multiple geographies, dynamic ramp-up to any levels of virtual users."
"From my own experience, if you're talking about load testing and performance testing then definitely you should go for CloudTest. Because when we compared CloudTest with Performance Center, cost wise it was a better solution. It is easy to use as well, and you can definitely get an automation engineer or a performance engineer with very little exposure to any programming or scripting language such as JavaScript. I would definitely recommend this solution and would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten."
"The capabilities and flexibility of the Controller, the ability to monitor the systems under test, and the comprehensive results Analysis which saves a great deal of time."
"It is actually a very good tool because it will support almost all, if not all, industry-standard protocols, and it is also equipped with very nice reporting capabilities, which is why I like it."
"I would rate Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional's stability at eight out of ten."
"It is an advanced tool with multiple options available for the performance system."
"The most useful aspect of the solution is that it provides agents in different geographic locations."
"The most important feature for us is that it supports a lot of protocols because we support all of them, including HTTP, FTP, mainframe, and others."
"It is a good and stable tool."
"It has good protocol coverage."
"There are several key features, including Jenkins integration, infrastructure monitoring, and results analysis."
"I would rate it as eight out of 10 for ease of setting up."
"NeoLoad offers better reporting than most competing tools. It is effortless to analyze and measure the reported data. It's also simple to generate a report that most people can read and management can understand. NeoLoad helps you figure out the main issues inside the application."
"The scripting is really user-friendly and the reporting is very good."
"Very easy to use the front end and the UI is very good."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to execute parallel requests, unlike JMeter and LoadRunner which can only be run sequentially."
"The most valuable feature of Tricentis NeoLoad for us has been its ability to easily monitor all the load generators and configure the dynamics and data rates. Additionally, we can monitor individual loads and data directly within NeoLoad without needing third-party tools."
"The dashboards give extensive statistics, which help with quick report preparation and analysis."
"It's a manual process to whitelist respective internal IPs in coordination with web operations team to access Soasta. Availability of any standardized tool from Soasta will make setup process easy."
"In terms of improvement, I think integration of these tools with the leading EPM tools would be good. It would help to seamlessly integrate to Dynatrace or AppDynamics to understand what the profiling looks like when generating a load."
"The test clip should be more user-friendly."
"Akamai cloud test integration into our current CI/CD pipelines (i.e.) identify and resolve the issues during the sprint phase which helps in delivering an absolute product and reduces time to market/release."
"The technical support of Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional could improve. I had an issue with the licensing and their response time is slow. They can improve on this in the future."
"Micro Focus has two separate products for web and mobile applications, which means you have to invest in both."
"Improvement wise, the pipeline should be enabled. It should be embedded as part of the tool itself rather than going with third-party tools. Monitoring should be more effective as well."
"The tool should consider releasing a SaaS version since it makes more sense nowadays."
"I guess scalability becomes a problem when you use things like TruClients."
"I would like them to lower the licensing cost and provide better support."
"LoadRunner Professional's parameter data could be improved."
"If the support of the protocols was the same throughout the other protocols and it was there evenly, then I would rate the product higher."
"Tricentis NeoLoad could improve the terminal emulation mainframe. It is not able to use the low code or no code option. You have to code it yourself."
"In future releases, it would be good if extra added features for integration are added into NeoLoad."
"There is room for improvement with the support and community documentation as it can be difficult to find answers to questions quickly."
"Connecting with the solution's technical support can be time-consuming. The turnaround time for a ticket raised is around 72 hours, which becomes an issue when working on a huge project in our company."
"I would like to see support for auto-correlations."
"NeoLoad can improve the correlation templates, which are specific to frameworks. There's room for improvement in that area."
"The solution’s pricing is higher compared to other tools. Though the product’s reports are accurate, it needs to be more detailed like other tools."
"Sometimes it's complicated to maintain the test cases. It's much easier than in JMeter, however. I'm not sure if this depends so much on NeoLoad, or is more based on the environment that we are testing."
More OpenText LoadRunner Professional Pricing and Cost Advice →
